Ethics

The Role of Servant Leadership in Developing an Ethical Climate in Sport Organizations

Laura J. Burton University of Connecticut

Jon Welty Peachey University of Illinois

Janelle E. Wells University of South Florida

Evaluation of leadership as a necessary component to reform sport could be critical to fostering a more ethical climate and reducing the frequency and severity of ethical improprieties within this context. However, limited research has examined the relationship between leadership and ethical climate. Servant leadership, due to its ethical component and people-centered focus, is a leadership approach that may best support development of an ethical climate. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of servant leadership on perceptions of an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletic departments, with an examination of how trust and perceptions of organizational justice indirectly influence the relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate. Findings indicated that servant leadership was directly related to trust in leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate. Further, both trust in the leader and procedural justice indirectly influenced the relationship between servant leadership and ethical climate.

Keywords: ethics, intercollegiate athletics, leadership, trust

The sport landscape has been plagued with ethical improprieties and scandals in recent years. There are recent examples in U.S. intercollegiate sport (e.g., Penn State/Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal, academic scandals) and U.S. professional sport (e.g., National Football League alleged minimization of the links between concussions and long-term brain injury), and ethical scandals have also plagued international sport at the highest level of sport leadership (e.g., Federation International de Football Association bribery scandals, International Association of Athletics doping scandals). Organizational climates that foster unethical behavior among leaders, administrators, and coaches seem to be more the norm than the exception in sport organizations. In light of these recent ethical scandals and many others, educators, scholars, and

officials both within and outside of sport management have called for reform of sport organizations and those that lead them (Lapchick, 2013; Lopiano & Gurney, 2014). In essence, scholars are beginning to call attention to the need for evaluation of leadership as a necessary component for reform in sport organizations and in intercollegiate athletics in particular (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013; DeSensi, 2014; Sagas & Wigley, 2014). More specifically, leadership is considered criti- cal to fostering a more ethical climate within sport organizations (Welty Peachey, Damon, Zhou, & Burton, 2015).

Current leadership research is moving away from the more traditional studies of transformational and transactional leadership toward a stronger emphasis on a shared and relational perspective, with a focus on the interaction between a leader and a follower (see Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). In addition, work by Welty Peachey and colleagues (2015) has highlighted the need to examine different types of leadership within the context of sport organizations, beyond transformational and transactional. Servant leadership has gained appeal as a result of the myriad positive outcomes associated with this style of leadership, most importantly the unique

Laura J. Burton is with the Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Jon Welty Peachey is with the Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL. Janelle E. Well is with the Department of Sport and Entertainment Management, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Address author correspondence to Laura J. Burton at laura.burton@ uconn.edu.

229

Journal of Sport Management, 2017, 31, 229-240 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0047 © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

focus on other-centered service (Neubert, Hunter, & Tolentino, 2016). Servant leadership is different than other approaches to leadership as it explicitly empha- sizes the needs of followers, and also because this approach emphasizes the ideal of service in the relation- ship between leader and follower (van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders focus on follower care and de- velopment (van Dierendonck, 2011) and place the inter- ests, needs, and aspirations of others before their own (Greenleaf, 1977). Barbuto, Gottfredson, and Searle (2014) define servant leadership as an “altruistic-based form of leadership in which leaders emphasize the needs and development of others, primarily their followers” (p. 2).

Servant leadership is an alternative approach to leadership, one without a primary focus on organiza- tional outcomes. Organizational outcomes are still important, but the emphasis is on developing and empowering followers, and through this development, organizational outcomes will be realized (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, de Windt, & Alkema, 2014). Scholars have advanced that this type of leadership should be explored in sport organizations, including intercollegiate sport, due to its ethical component and people-centered ap- proach (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013; DeSensi, 2014). In fact, ethics is at the core of servant leadership, with its emphasis on integrity and trustworthiness (van Dierendonck, 2011). Further, within sport organiza- tions, developing an ethical climate, defined as employ- ees’ shared perceptions of the ethical practices and procedures of the organization (Victor & Cullen, 1988), is needed (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013). Limited scholarship, however, has examined the rela- tionship between leadership and ethical climate in sport organizations, which as noted earlier are in need of reform.

There is also a developing body of research exam- ining organizational outcomes associated with servant leadership that have an ethical component to them, all of which constitutes the ethical climate of an organi- zation. For instance, servant leadership fosters trust in the leader and the organization (Joseph & Winston, 2005; Sendjaya & Pekerti, 2010). In addition, organiza- tions led by a servant leader are positively associated with procedural organizational justice (Chung, Jung, Kyle, & Petrick, 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). Servant leadership could thus be vital in establishing an ethical climate in sport organizations, with trust and procedural justice as factors indirectly influencing the ability of servant lea- ders to do so. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to explore the influence of servant leadership on percep- tions of an ethical climate in one type of sport organiza- tion, intercollegiate athletic departments, with an examination of how trust and perceptions of organiza- tional justice indirectly influence the relationship be- tween servant leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

In this section, we detail servant leadership, highlight research linking servant leadership in support of ethical organizations and outcomes, frame the concept of ethical climate, and propose potential factors (i.e., trust and organizational justice) through which servant leadership may operate in order to develop an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletic departments. We also advance several hypotheses.

Servant Leadership

The increasing number of sport management scholars who have focused on leadership over the past decade has highlighted the importance of this topic in sport (see Welty Peachey et al., 2015). Leaders can shape the norms and values of an organization and can therefore create ethical norms that are able to guide the moral or immoral behavior of the individuals or groups of in- dividuals that they lead (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Since its introduction by Greenleaf (1977), servant leadership has re-emerged over the past 15 years of leadership research as a theory of leadership that follows an ethical or moral basis (Dinh et al., 2014). Work conducted by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) to develop a conceptual framework for servant leadership supported development of five constructs. First, servant leaders have a desire to make a positive difference in the lives of their followers and are therefore driven by an altruistic calling. Servant leaders also practice emotional healing by making a commitment to followers and demonstrat- ing skill in fostering spiritual recovery in support of followers suffering from hardship. Further, servant lea- ders demonstrate wisdom as they are aware of surround- ings and anticipate consequences, which allows them to note cues from the environment and understand the implications of these cues on their followers. By using persuasive mapping, servant leaders have the ability to use sound reasoning and mental frameworks to create shared and compelling reasons for action. Finally, ser- vant leaders demonstrate organizational stewardship as they aspire for their organizations to make positive contributions to society through community develop- ment, programs, and outreach and by utilizing ethical business practices (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

van Dierendonck (2011) and colleagues (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015) have worked to more fully develop and clarify the conceptual framework of servant leader- ship. Through this work, six areas of servant leadership were conceptualized, which include empowerment, stewardship, authenticity, providing direction, humility, and interpersonal acceptance.

Empowerment: Servant leaders foster an empowering attitude in followers that in turn generates follower self- confidence and provides followers with a sense of personal

230 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

power. This type of leadership behavior encourages infor- mation sharing with followers as well as self-directed decision making, and it provides support and coaching for innovative performance. Servant leaders fundamentally believe in the intrinsic value possessed by each follower, recognizing and acknowledging each person’s abilities and what the person can learn (Greenleaf, 1998).

Stewardship: Servant leaders act as stewards as they are willing to take responsibility for the entire organiza- tion and put the interests of followers and the organiza- tion over and above their own self-interests. Servant leaders also act as role models and care takers, setting an example for followers and inspiring others to act in the common interests of all. The characteristics of steward- ship are closely linked to the concepts of teamwork, social responsibility, and loyalty.

Authenticity: Servant leaders demonstrate authentici- ty, being true to oneself, both in public and in private. Authenticity is about expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner feelings and thoughts. A servant leader’s authenticity is demonstrated by doing what is promised, being visible within the organization, and lead- ing with honesty (Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002) and vulnerability (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). As noted by van Dierendonck (2011), authenticity within the context of an organization indicates a leader behaves in such a way that the professional role of the leader remains secondary to the primary role of the individual as a person.

Providing direction: Servant leaders provide direc- tion by clearly demonstrating to followers what is ex- pected of them. Within the context of servant leadership, leaders provide an appropriate amount of accountability for followers. Also, leaders customize directions based on followers’ abilities, needs, and input. This type of leading allows for new ways of getting things accom- plished and creates alternative ways to meet old problems, with consistent reliance on values and con- victions when accomplishing tasks.

Humility: Servant leaders put their own accomplish- ments and talents in perspective. Further, servant leaders acknowledge that they can benefit from the expertise of others and therefore actively seek out contributions of followers. By demonstrating humility, a servant leader puts followers’ interests first, provides followers with support, and facilitates their followers’ performance. A servant leader also demonstrates humility by retreating into the background and not taking sole credit when a task has been successfully accomplished.

Interpersonal acceptance: Servant leaders are able to create an environment in which followers feel safe. This includes creating a trusting relationship, so that followers are able to make mistakes and still feel they will be accepted. Servant leaders take and understand another person’s perspective and are able to “walk in another’s shoes.” They demonstrate compassion and show empathy and forgiveness even when confronted with arguments, personal offences, or mistakes.

Within the sport context, servant leadership re- search has only recently drawn attention as scholars

have been primarily focused on transformational lead- ership and the influence of those leadership behaviors on organizational outcomes (Welty Peachey et al., 2015). However, given that transformational leaders’ primary allegiance is to their organizations, transformational leaders view the personal growth of followers within the context of what is best for their organizations (Graham, 1991). Within transformational leadership, there is the risk of manipulation of followers in order to achieve organizational goals or to meet the leader’s personal goals (van Dierendonck, 2011). In contrast, the moral grounding of servant leadership, one that is not included in understandings of transformational leader- ship (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008) could help to foster an ethical climate within intercollegiate athletic departments and sport organizations more generally (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Further, as transformational leadership highlights only objectives of the organization as the primary motive for leading, with an emphasis on “getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives” (Stone et al., 2004, p. 354), this type of leadership is not ideal for developing an ethical climate. With a focus only on organizational outcomes, leaders can and do lose sight of the needs of those they are leading. In addition, the values held by transformational leaders influence wheth- er they are moral or immoral leaders (Bass, 1985), and a transformational leader can act in violation of ethical norms by focusing on overriding individual interests to fulfill organizational objectives (Parolini, Patterson, & Winston, 2009; Stephens, D’Intino, & Victor, 1995). When there is only a focus on organizational objectives, decisions can be perceived to be in the best interest of the organization but fail those individuals within the orga- nization or those that it serves, including student athletes within the intercollegiate sport context (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Servant leaders’ values (e.g., acting ethically), in- tentions (e.g., sacrificing for others), and behaviors (e.g., support for followers) generate followers’ respect and loyalty (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010). This influence is unique in the relationship between servant leaders and followers when compared with other leader–follower relationships as a result of the “attention, support, and care given by the leader to encourage followers to view themselves ac- cording to the tight-knit relationship they have with their leaders” (Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014, p. 1396). Thus, such morally grounded relationships could help foster an ethical climate within sport orga- nizations, including intercollegiate athletic departments (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Ethical Climate

Scholars have advanced that ethical climate is a type of organizational climate that captures employees’

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 231

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

perceptions of the ethical policies, practices, and proce- dures of the organization (Martin & Cullen, 2006). Previous scholarship has demonstrated that an organiza- tion’s ethical climate is associated with organizational values and ethical behavior of its employees (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005; Deshpande & Joseph, 2009). In addition, prior research has found that an organiza- tion’s ethical climate is related to a number of other organizational outcomes, such as organizational com- mitment (Tsai & Huang, 2008), voluntary turnover intentions (Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2008), and job satisfaction (Elçi & Alpkan, 2009).

Leadership behavior can be a critical determinant in establishing an ethical climate within organizations (Mulki et al., 2008). Leaders establish an ethical climate by setting clear standards for employees and holding them accountable to those standards (Mulki et al., 2008). Further, and importantly, an ethical climate within an organization can serve to mediate the relationship be- tween leadership behavior and positive ethical organi- zational outcomes (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Fahrbach, 2015). Ethical leaders are characterized as “honest, caring, and principled individuals who make fair and balanced decisions” (Brown & Treviño, 2006, p. 597). In providing more detail, Treviño, Brown, and Pincus Hartman (2003) described ethical leaders along two dimensions—moral person and moral manager. The moral person component of ethical leadership represents an individual who demonstrates concern for others and is approachable, which maintains strong similarity to the description of a servant leader. The followers of ethical leaders “can come to these individuals with problems and concerns, knowing that they will be heard” (Brown & Mitchell, 2010, p. 584). Further, the stewardship demonstrated by servant leaders also matches the concept of being a moral manager, “patterning their behavior and organizational processes to meet moral standards” (p. 584).

By acting ethically, servant leaders can establish an organizational climate where acting the right way and doing the right thing are valued, encouraged, and ex- pected (Brown et al., 2005). Researchers are beginning to examine how servant leadership is linked to ethical leadership and how servant leaders can develop and support ethical organizational climates. Within the con- text of professional sales organizations, leaders demon- strating servant leadership contributed to the creation of an ethical work climate that fostered an environ- ment of individual ethical selling behaviors by their employees (Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela, 2015). In addi- tion, Schwepker and Schultz (2015) found that servant leadership improves employee performance, as medi- ated through ethical climate. Finally, servant leadership may be the most appropriate form of leadership to facilitate the development of an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletics due to its moral grounding and emphasis on employee (follower) well-being (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H1: Servant leadership behavior as demonstrated by the athletic director will be positively related to followers’ (athletic department personnel) percep- tions of an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletic departments.

Trust in Leaders

Perceptions of servant leadership are positively correlat- ed to leadership trust (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Addi- tionally, a conceptual framework for servant leadership has indicated that trust in the leader indirectly impacts the relationship between servant leadership and organi- zational outcomes (van Dierendonck, 2011). Trust de- veloped by servant leaders had an indirect impact on the relationship between leadership and development of organizational commitment (Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014), and trust created by a servant leader facilitated an open climate, built a helping culture, and was associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011). At the group level, trust developed by servant leaders has demonstrat- ed a positive influence on a work team’s support for workplace innovation, regardless of the individual’s level of support for innovation (Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2014). This finding is noteworthy and worth exploring in the context of sport organiza- tions, as all employees may not agree on the necessity of an ethical climate in their organizations (see the ethical scandals detailed in the introduction). However, sport leaders using servant leadership behaviors in support of an ethical climate may have an influence on the beliefs of their employees as a result of the trust in the leader.

As such, we posit the following:

H2a: Servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic director will be positively related to fol- lowers’ (athletic department personnel) level of trust in the athletic director.

H2b: Followers’ (athletic department personnel) lev- el of trust in an athletic director will have an indirect and positive influence on the relationship between servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic director and perceptions of an ethical climate.

Servant Leadership and Organizational Justice

There has been no research to date examining how the decision-making process within sport organizations is influenced by servant leadership behaviors and on how the decision-making process impacts the ethical climate in sport organizations. Scholars examining the decision- making processes of organizations often focus on per- ceptions of organizational justice (Mahony, Hums, Andrew, & Dittmore, 2010). Organizational justice is defined “as the fairness of the procedures used by leaders to determine outcome distributions or allocations, and the fairness of outcome distributions or allocations”

232 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

(Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012, p. 424). The construct of organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001) includes four factors: distributive justice with a focus on the fairness of the distribution of resources; procedural justice that focuses on the fairness of the procedures used to distrib- ute resources; and interaction justice, which includes two factors—interpersonal justice and informational justice— and focuses on “how decisions are enacted by authority figures” (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Greenberg, 2003, p. 166). The behaviors of servant leaders attend to the needs of followers and provide a sense of interpersonal sensitivity to followers, which supports followers’ sense of justice (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008).

Within the context of intercollegiate athletics, scho- lars have examined perceptions of organizational justice in the context of administrations’ resource allocations, coach satisfaction, and athlete perceptions of coaches (Jordan, Turner, Fink, & Pastore, 2007; Kim & Andrew, 2013; Mahony, Hums, & Riemer, 2002). However, there is a dearth of research regarding how leadership beha- viors in sport organizations (and in intercollegiate ath- letics specifically) are understood within the context of fairness and justice procedures. Further, there is no research that has examined how leaders in sport orga- nizations who demonstrate servant leadership utilize processes of organizational justice to support an ethical climate.

In the general leadership literature, servant leader- ship is positively linked to both components of interac- tional justice as servant leaders enhance employees’ empowerment by supporting more honest explanations of decisions and respecting employees’ contributions to the organization (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012). As a component of interactional justice, informational jus- tice addresses the fairness of procedures and the honest explanation of decisions (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). In addition, the second component of interactional justice—interpersonal justice— addresses whether leaders treat followers with respect and dignity.

Further, servant leadership is positively linked to procedural justice in organizations, as this aspect of organizational justice is focused on the extent to which organizational processes and procedures are perceived as fair and consistent with adequate input from followers (Chung et al., 2010; Ehrhart, 2004). As noted by Walumbwa and colleagues (2010), servant leaders are best suited to positively influence procedural justice as “they maintain consistently high ethical standards across group members and seek input from and attempt to reach consensus among employees on important decisions” (p. 520). Further, procedural justice also contributes to development of an ethical climate (Luria & Yagil, 2008). If employees believe that decision-making processes are fair and that various procedures in the sport organization have integrity, are applied equally to all employees, and are perceived as fair, then it stands to reason that procedural justice should lead to an ethical climate and improved ethical behavior on the part of employees.

Thus, procedural justice is a mechanism through which servant leaders, who are adept at enhancing perceptions of procedural justice, influence the ethical climate in the organization. Given findings demonstrating that the influence of servant leadership on fostering interactional justice and procedural justice is critical to establishing an ethical climate as described previously, we focused on those aspects of organizational justice in the current study. Further, due to a lack of empirical evidence supporting the link between servant leadership and distributive justice, distributive justice was omitted as a variable of interest in our study.

Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic director will positively influence percep- tions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice by followers (athletic department personnel).

H3b: Procedural justice as perceived by followers (athletic department personnel) will have a positive indirect effect on the relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate.

Method

Participants

A random selection of 285 athletic department personnel from 151 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletic departments was contacted via e-mail notification to complete an online survey. A total of 168 (N = 168) participants completed the survey for a re- sponse rate of 59%. Of the 151 departments, there were 12 that included more than one participant in our sample. Ninety-eight women and 67 men participated (three participants did not indicate sex on the survey) and represented the following positions: associate athletic director (65), assistant athletic director (30), director (19), assistant director (17), staff (32), graduate assistant (3), and two participants who did not list a position. The majority of the sample had between 1 and 10 years (74%) of experience working in athletic administration, with 40% having between 1 and 5 years of experience.

Measures

All scales were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Servant leadership was measured using van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s (2011) 30-item servant leadership scale. After conducting a confirmato- ry factor analysis (CFA), 21 items measured servant leadership (α = .93). Ethical climate (13 items, α = .87) was measured based on the scale developed by Cullen, Victor, and Bronson (1993). Trust (7 items, α = .92) in the athletic director was measured based on items devel- oped by Robinson (1996). Finally, organizational justice was measured based on the scale developed by Colquitt (2001), which included 16 total items. Seven items

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 233

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

measured procedural justice (α = .91), four items mea- sured interpersonal justice (α = .91), and five items measured informational justice (α = .90).

Procedures

Participants received an e-mail invitation explaining the purpose of the study and requesting their participation in the anonymous online survey. Two days following the e-mail invitation, participants were sent another e-mail explaining the purpose of the study and a link to the online survey. Two weeks following the initial e-mail invitation, a follow-up reminder e-mail was sent to encourage responses.

Data Analysis

The efficiency of the self-completion questionnaire properties, CFA, and proposed hypotheses were tested using SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 7.31. Prior to analyzing the data, inter-rater agreement was investigated. Data pro- viding evidence indicating independence (e.g., rWG values <.70) were the data represented in the sample of 168 participants and were the data used in the analyses (see LeBreton & Senter, 2008). To examine the direct and indirect hypothesized relationships, the Hayes (2012) PROCESS mediation modeling macro for SPSS was utilized. Analyses of total effect, direct effect, boot- strapped bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals of the indirect effect, and 5,000 bootstrapped samples were evaluated. In the Hayes (2012) PROCESS macro analy- sis, continuous predictors were mean-centered.

Results

Sample descriptive statistics and correlations are provid- ed in Table 1. To evaluate the measurement model and provide evidence of reliability and validity, a CFA was performed (see Table 2). Some of the related yet distinct servant leadership factors fell below the .50 cutoff and could not be discriminated from one another (Kline,

2005), resulting in nine items of van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s (2011) 30-item servant leadership scale being removed. The remaining servant leadership item load- ings ranged from .54 to .91, and the construct reliabilities and average variance extracted values met or exceeded the standard recommendations of .70 and .50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006; see Table 2). Item loadings for the other variables ranged from .66 to .85 for procedural justice, .66 to .94 for interactional justice, .71 to .91 for informational justice, .69 to .77 for ethical climate, and .59 to .80 for trust.

The measurement model had reasonable fit (Kline, 2005) as indicated by values of χ²/df ratio (1.59 = 1557.57/979), comparative fit index (.91), Tucker–Lewis index (.90), root mean square error of approximation (.06), and standardized root mean square residual (.06).

Servant leadership behavior as demonstrated by an athletic director was positively associated with percep- tions of formation of an ethical climate in intercollegiate athletic departments, in support of Hypothesis 1 (β = 0.62, p = .001). A positive relationship between servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic director and trust in the leader was found (β = 0.84, p = .001), sup- porting Hypothesis 2a. Additionally, trust was found to have an indirect effect on the relationship between

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Servant leadership 3.60 .63 –

2. Ethical climate 3.54 .56 .62* – 3. Trust 3.79 .89 .80* .66* –

4. Procedural justice 3.42 .74 .76* .58* .73* – 5. Interpersonal

justice 4.11 .79 .67* .50* .76* .58* –

6. Informational justice

3.62 .82 .79* .60* .79* .73* .71* –

Note. N = 168.

*p < .05.

Table 2 Servant Leadership Factor Loading, Construct Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted

Construct Item Factor Loading CR AVE

Accountability 6 .81 .85 .65

14 .83

22 .78

Standing back 12 .61 .87 .57

13 .91

20 .64

5 .80

21 .77

Courage 8 .54 .71 .56

16 .91

Authenticity 24 .59 .70 .59

17 .86

Empowerment 1 .71 .93 .59

2 .79

3 .82

4 .73

27 .75

19 .72

18 .75

29 .83

30 .83

Note. Standardized values. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability.

234 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

servant leadership as demonstrated by the athletic direc- tor and perceptions of an ethical climate. As such, Hypothesis 2b was supported. A bias-corrected boot- strap confidence interval for the indirect effect (b = 0.36) of trust was entirely above zero (.200 to .561; see Table 3).

Perceptions of procedural justice (β = 0.76, p = .001), interpersonal justice (β = 0.68, p = .001), and informational justice (β = 0.85, p = .001) by athletic de- partment personnel were positively related to servant leadership behaviors as demonstrated by athletic direc- tors, providing support for Hypothesis 3a. Further, procedural justice as perceived by athletic department personnel was found to indirectly affect the relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate, supporting Hypothesis 3b. A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (b = 0.17) of procedural justice was entirely above zero (.032–.260; see Table 3).

Discussion

This study provides important contributions to under- standing how leaders can support an ethical climate in sport organizations. First, our findings indicate that servant leadership has a direct influence on fostering trust for employees in sport organizations and that through trust, servant leaders help support perceptions of an ethical climate in that organization. Second, ser- vant leaders act to support an ethical climate through the mechanisms of procedural justice. These findings

contribute to leadership research in the sport context by beginning to examine the processes of how leadership can affect various organizational outcomes. In their review of 40 years of leadership research in sport management, Welty Peachey et al. (2015) highlighted that most leadership research in sport management has focused on the direct effect of leadership on various organizational outcomes and has not examined in any great depth the processes of leadership, including the underlying mechanisms (e.g., organizational proce- dures) and/or follower attributes and behaviors by which leadership influences organizational outcomes. The present study adds to the theoretical understanding of leadership in sport by beginning to examine and unpack this “black box.”

Findings of the present study support that servant leadership behaviors as demonstrated by an athletic director do lead to perceptions of an ethical climate by athletic department personnel. This initial finding aligns with emerging work that recognizes the unique attri- butes of servant leadership as a style of leadership that can foster an ethical work climate (Jaramillo et al., 2015) and supports the proposition advanced by Burton and Welty Peachey (2013) that servant leadership can foster an ethical climate in intercollegiate sport and, we would argue, in the broader sport context as well. By demonstrating servant leadership behaviors, including acting as a steward for their organizations and both empowering employees and holding them accountable for their actions (van Dierendonck, 2011), leaders of sport organizations can increase the perceptions of an ethical climate in their organizations. We do not suggest that unethical behavior will not take place under the watch of a servant leader, only that servant leadership may help to mitigate this behavior through establishing an ethical climate. In addition, we do not suggest that servant leadership is the only leadership style that will evince an ethical climate or other positive organization- al outcomes, as there are characteristics of servant leadership (e.g., authenticity and empowerment) that are attributable to transformational and authentic lead- ership as well.

Fostering an ethical climate in sport organizations is critical as organizations that support such a climate are negatively associated with employees making un- ethical choices (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Trevino, 2010). Further, given that an organization’s ethical climate has been found to be associated with ethical values and behaviors of employees (Deshpande & Joseph, 2009; Winbush & Shepard, 1994; Winbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997), it stands to reason that a leader of a sport organization demonstrating servant leadership can develop an ethical climate to help mitigate ethical improprieties, issues, and scandals that arise within their organizations. Our findings support emerging research that finds a positive influ- ence of servant leadership on formation of an ethical climate and introduces the possibility that ethical climates, as supported by servant leaders, can enhance

Table 3 Results for Mediation Hypotheses 2b and 3b

Path/Effect β SE

95% Confidence Interval

Model 1

c (Servant lead → Ethical climate)

0.20* .10

a (Servant lead → trust) 1.20* .06

b (Trust → Ethical climate) 0.30* .07

c′ 0.56* .05

a × b (Mediation effect) 0.36* .09 .200, .561

Model 2

c (Servant lead → Ethical climate)

0.40* .08

a (Servant lead → ProJustice) 0.91* .06

b (ProJustice → Ethical climate)

0.18* .07

c′ 0.56* .06

a × b (Mediation effect) 0.17* .07 .036, .323

Note. Unstandardized coefficients. ProJustice = procedural justice.

*p < .001.

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 235

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

ethical behavior carried out by personnel in sport organizations (Jaramillo et al., 2015; Schwepker & Schultz, 2015).

In an effort to better understand how servant leadership influences perceptions of an ethical climate, trust and organizational justice were examined. First, with regards to the role of trust in the relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of an ethical climate, it was found that there was a positive relationship between servant leadership as demon- strated by an athletic director and trust in the athletic director, and that trust indirectly influenced the rela- tionship between servant leadership and ethical climate. This finding supports previous work demon- strating a positive relationship between servant lead- ership behaviors and the development of trust in the leader (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Trust in organiza- tional leadership is important in many aspects of employee and organizational outcomes. The ability of servant leaders in the sport context to foster em- ployee trust in leadership could lead to higher levels of organizational commitment (Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014), aid in building a helping culture, and facilitate orga- nizational citizenship behaviors among employees (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011). Trust is critical in fostering an ethical climate (Mulki et al., 2008), and as the present study findings indicate, servant leaders establish trust, which then leads to support for an ethical climate. When considering the processes that facilitate ethical climates in sport orga- nizations, our findings note that servant leaders, through their actions as leaders, both establish trust with their employees and support perceptions of an ethical climate.

All the previously mentioned constructs (organiza- tional commitment, helping culture, and organizational citizenship behaviors), which help constitute the ethical climate of an organization, could indicate that employees are behaving more ethically and that trust in the leader positively influences this ethical behavior. It must be noted that developing trust in the leader does not happen overnight. Likely, it will take some time for a servant leader to cultivate the level of trust necessary to facilitate an ethical climate and subsequent organizational- and individual-level outcomes. The length of time needed to develop this trust is not known and presents an excellent opportunity for future research.

Finally, our findings indicate that perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice were positively related to servant leadership behaviors dem- onstrated by the athletic director, in support of previous work in business management identifying a positive relationship between servant leadership and interactional justice (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012) and procedural justice (Chung et al., 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2010). These findings contribute to our under- standing of the mechanisms used by servant leaders to help foster an ethical climate. Acting as a servant leader is important, but it is also vital to establish procedures by

which employees recognize that the leader is providing fair and equitable treatment (e.g., how resources are distributed among employees) and that the leader is demonstrating respect, is sensitive to follower needs, and is fair in how employees are treated (Mahony et al., 2010). In the context of sport, servant leadership then appears to be critical in facilitating perceptions of orga- nizational justice among employees, which could be important in enhancing employee morale and motivation and in mitigating voluntary turnover (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013).

Further, the present study demonstrates that servant leadership also had an indirect effect on facilitating an ethical climate through perceptions of procedural justice. This finding makes intuitive sense, as procedural justice has been linked with facilitating ethical climates in organizations (Luria & Yagil, 2008), and servant leaders appear to be adept at enhancing perceptions of proce- dural justice. Our findings contribute to the understand- ing of how servant leaders in sport organizations are establishing an ethical climate in their organization by attending to the needs of followers and providing a sense of interpersonal sensitivity to followers, which facilitates followers’ sense of justice (Mayer et al., 2008) through the mechanisms of organizational justice. Further, our findings support the proposition that when employees believe that decision-making processes are fair and that various procedures used in their sport organizations are applied equally to all employees, then procedural justice does lead to an ethical climate. This finding undergirds the understanding of how servant leaders can support an ethical climate by focusing on integrity and care for followers, where the servant leader sees it as his or her calling to serve others fairly and ethically first (Sendjaya et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). The moral ground- ing of servant leaders could be key for developing positive perceptions of procedural justice (Sendjaya et al., 2008). For sport organizations, then, servant leadership can be important in facilitating both percep- tions of procedural justice and an ethical climate, all of which could help mitigate the ethical improprieties prevalent in sport.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

From a theoretical standpoint, the present study has contributed to our understanding of the importance of servant leadership both in the sport context for develop- ing an ethical climate and in how servant leadership influences development of an ethical climate. Servant leaders focusing on a call to serve employees fairly and ethically must demonstrate these leadership behaviors through organizational procedures that foster percep- tions of fairness and equity. It is through these processes of procedural justice and through trust in the leader that employees come to perceive an ethical climate in their organizations. The principal theoretical contribution here, as mentioned earlier, is that this study provides insight into the processes through which leadership

236 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

influences outcome variables, a neglected area of lead- ership research in sport management (Welty Peachey et al., 2015). Indeed, the business management literature has also advanced the critical need for scholars to engage in further work investigating leadership processes (Yammarino, 2013). The present study makes an impor- tant and significant conceptual contribution from a leadership processes standpoint, given that scholars, sport managers, and others have been wrestling with the best way to address the unethical behavior in sport for years. Perhaps servant leadership is one way forward to help restore the ethical imbalance by cultivating an ethical climate through the processes of trust and proce- dural justice.

Practically, these findings suggest several avenues for consideration by leaders in sport. First and foremost, as mentioned earlier, it would be beneficial for servant leadership to be highlighted and supported as an impor- tant form of leadership for sport organizations and a form of leadership to facilitate ethical climates in sport orga- nizations. This could include providing training to future leaders (e.g., students in sport management programs) through exposure to the tenants of servant leadership in courses and in leadership development programs. Fur- ther, highlighting those leaders who use servant leader- ship as a model of fostering an ethical climate in sport organizations could help expose current leaders in sport to alternative approaches to leadership (i.e., more than transactional, transformational). Based on our current findings, leaders of sport organizations should also focus on ways to enhance procedural justice within their organizations. Care should be given to how decisions are made, the process through which decision making takes place, who is involved in this decision making, and the transparency, consistency, frequency, and integrity of communications from organizational leadership to staff. If personnel believe that decisions and organiza- tional procedures are fair, they will be more likely to perceive an ethical climate, which could then translate into positive organizational outcomes, such as in- creased ethical behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational commitment, though this has not been empirically examined in sport organiza- tions to date.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As all studies have limitations, we must outline several here, which may have impacted our results and which also provide a stimulus for future research and scholar- ship. First, though we examined perceptions of an ethical climate, we did not examine actual ethical conduct by athletic personnel. An ethical climate has been linked to ethical behavior in other organizational contexts (e.g., professional selling), so this may also extend to ethical behavior in sport organizations; however, it was not directly examined in this study. Future work should explore the links among servant leadership, perceptions

of an ethical climate, and the ethical behavior of sport organization personnel. Another limitation of the present study is that we only focused on National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I schools with this inves- tigation, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other National Collegiate Athletic Association divi- sions or sectors of the sport industry. Thus, future research must explore the relationships between servant leadership, ethical climate, trust, and organizational justice in other college sport contexts and in other sectors of the sport industry such as professional sport, commu- nity-based sport, and organizations working in the sport for development sphere. Perhaps in some of these sec- tors, such as sport for development, servant leadership may be practiced more routinely and already have good traction with fostering trust, organizational justice, and ethical climates within the organizations (Welty Peachey & Burton, 2016). Expanding this line of inquiry in these directions will help provide a more robust understanding of how these constructs operate in the sport context.

Another limitation of the present study is the possibility of same source bias. To address such bias, the CFA results suggested our data were better suited for our proposed measurement model in comparison with a single-factor model. Further, Spector (2006) concluded issues caused by common method variance can be overstated and are seldom serious enough to invalidate findings. Just the same, future research should involve a wider method and sample of employ- ees within an intercollegiate athletic department (and in other sport sectors as well), from support staff to equipment managers to coaches. It may be that per- ceptions of the role of servant leadership in fostering trust, organizational justice, ethical climate, and the perceived associations between these variables might vary with employees more distal from the leaders of the organization, who perhaps interact more routinely with another supervisor in terms of direct reporting. These other individuals may actually have a stronger influence on an employee’s ethical behavior than the top administrator, given the pronounced and identified influence of subcultures in organizational life (Schein, 2010). Further, links between the distributive justice component of organizational justice and servant lead- ership, though not empirically supported in work outside of sport management, should be evaluated in the context of sport organizations. Given that distrib- utive justice focuses on fairness of the distribution of resources, it would be of interest to better understand how servant leadership, through its emphasis on stew- ardship, supports an ethical climate by examining how resources are allocated in sport organizations. Future work should also evaluate how servant leadership influences perceptions of ethical climate at the group or organizational level, in order to examine how ethical climate is perceived at the organizational level and how this may influence ethical behavior by em- ployees in those organizations. In a related vein,

Servant Leadership Ethical Climate 237

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3

additional research should identify other outcomes of an ethical climate that are fostered by servant leaders, such as organizational citizenship behavior and orga- nizational commitment.

Future research should also employ qualitative methodology to help understand the “why” and the “how” of the relationships among servant leadership, trust, organizational justice, and ethical climate (Creswell, 2012). Recent scholarship has also called for the examination of antecedents to servant leader- ship in the sport context (see Welty Peachey et al., 2015), such as moral identity, compassionate love, and lived experiences of leaders (van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). Ascertaining how and why servant leadership manifests in leaders would be an important line of inquiry, as this would contribute to a more robust theoretical understanding of how servant lead- ership develops and operates in the sport context. Finally, it may be illuminating to compare servant leadership and transformation leadership with regard to supporting an ethical climate. Previous work has noted that both types of leadership contribute to positive organizational outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment and work engagement), though via dif- fering mechanisms. Servant leaders contributed to positive work outcomes through meeting followers’ needs, whereas transformational leaders did so by leader effectiveness as perceived by their followers (van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Athletic directors or other sport leaders could be surveyed on their percep- tions of how they exhibit servant and transformational leadership behaviors, and then subordinates could be surveyed to see how their perceptions correlate or vary from their leaders’ perceptions.

Sport organizations continually face ethical deci- sions, yet recently numerous improprieties and scandals seem to have become more the norm than the exception. The findings of this research are timely and offer a starting point for investigating how unique attributes of a servant leader can foster an ethical work climate. We invite and encourage other scholars to extend the present work along the lines of the future directions we suggest or follow other related avenues of inquiry stimulated by the current study.

References

Barbuto, J.E., Gottfredson, R.K., & Searle, T.P. (2014). An examination of emotional intelligence as an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organiza- tional Studies, 21(3), 315–323. doi:10.1177/ 1548051814531826

Barbuto, J.E., Jr., & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31, 300–326. doi:10. 1177/1059601106287091

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond ex- pectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Brown, M.E., & Mitchell, M.S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616. doi:10. 5840/beq201020439

Brown, M.E., & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. doi:10. 1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Burton, L., & Welty Peachey, J. (2013). The call for servant leadership in intercollegiate athletics. Quest, 65(3), 354– 371. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791870

Chung, J.Y., Jung, C.S., Kyle, G.T., & Petrick, J.F. (2010). Justice in the US National Park Service: The antecedents of job satisfaction. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad- ministration, 28(3), 1–15.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. PubMed doi:10. 1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O., & Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. PubMed doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organi- zational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenburg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 159–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cullen, J.B., Victor, B., & Bronson, J.W. (1993). The ethical climate questionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity. Psychological Reports, 73, 667–674. doi:10. 2466/pr0.1993.73.2.667

DeSensi, J.T. (2014). Sport: An ethos based on values and servant leadership. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7(1), 58–63. doi:10.1123/jis.2014-0097

Deshpande, S.P., & Joseph, J. (2009). Impact of emotional intelligence, ethical climate, and behavior of peers on ethical behavior of nurses. Journal of Business Ethics, 85 (3), 403–410. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9779-z

Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W.L., Meuser, J.D., Liden, R.C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and chang- ing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005

Ebener, D.R., & O’Connell, D.J. (2010). How might servant leadership work? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(3), 315–335. doi:10.1002/nml.256

Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice cli- mate as antecedents of unit level organizational citizen- ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x

238 Burton, Welty Peachey, and Wells

JSM Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 06

/2 3/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

3